Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
Nahhhhhh! Liberal intelligence is a myth. No one anywhere suggested there isn't global warming. Most question only whether it's man-made. If liberals would actually read, and be able to comprehend, they would understand that.
The Goddard Institute is known to be bias. James Hansen is one of the so-called 'fathers of global warming', and has been directing GISS since the early 80s. The GISS has, under his leadership, always had inflated and boosted warming numbers that lead the pack compared to other respectable science firms.
A perfect example of this was GISS October surprise announcement that it was the hottest october in ever recorded. Unfortunately, this brought on a lot of questions by meteorologists who had noticed un-seasonal snow, and dropping temps. This added critique of GISS's report led to the discovery that the temp data used for October, was fabricated. The data was carried over from prior months. Thankfully James Hansen is in government where there are no expectations to meet quality requirements, only political requirements.
Nevertheless, the fact our climate has risen 0.8 ºC for 100 years prior till now, should indicated that the climate is always changing.
There are two problems with the data given. First, many of the temp recording locations are now in developed areas that skew the results. For example, a recorded temp in farm land years ago, would now be much higher in a place developed with roads, cars, homes and buildings. So while it looks as if temperatures are increase, it may only be the effects of a developed area.
The second is the largely questionable, and limited methods for determining temps from long ago. Prior to the recorded instrumentation of temperature data, most have used tree rings. The problem is, there are only certain locations and tree types that can use tree ring data to determine temps. It's also a violation of credible data gathering methods, to use one specific measuring system for one data set, and a totally different one for another data set, and expect to get meaningful results.
One wonders why they do not use tree ring data for the all the temperature information? Of course it's possible they don't like the answers they get when doing so.
While the arctic is generally melting, the antarctic, is growing massively. Temps have dropped for the last 35 years, and the ice sheets are not large enough that some scientists are saying it may start to lower the global water level.
Norway Glaciers are growing.
Glaciers in the Himalayas are growing and expanding.
Ice and snow on Yukon's soaring Mount Logan, in Canada, is growing.
Arctic sea ice growing at the fastest rate since 1979.
Alaskan glaciers grow 1/3 of a mile in under a year.
If you need more, let me know. Otherwise, I'm moving on.
1998 was the year of El Nino. After that passed, temps returned to relatively normal temps.
Typically increasing temps reduce weather events. In order for weather invests to form, the temp must drop to allow water vapor in the air to condense into water droplets that make up clouds which are the basis for weather events. A leading climatologist said the far from seeing in increase in tropical storms, hurricanes and tornados, these events have declined in warmer years.
Not exactly. There is no way to "trap" heat in an open system. There is no one-way glass covering the planet. Otherwise, you are dead on.
Actually there is much debate on this. We know that CO2 in increasing, but do we know it is exclusively due to us? One of the interesting, but much less known results from the Arctic Ice Core samples is that CO2 levels were found to be much higher than our current 380 PPM, and much lower the the assumed 'normal' 280 PPM. In other words, is it possible there is a natural change in the concentration of CO2? If the Ice Core samples are to be trusted, then clearly it is.
Again, the pre-industrial revolution of 280, is simply the amount recorded at the time. There is no real way of knowing if that was the upswing, or downswing recording of a naturally fluctuating amount.
Also, what many people don't realize is that all human activity only amounts to just 2.5% of the total global out put of CO2. 97.5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is naturally created. Claiming that our tiny fraction of the CO2 made, is some to blame for a 36% increase in CO2, fairly laughable, especially when there are dozens of factors that effect our atmosphere that we don't understand.
If you don't have anything to say, don't. I deleted the rest of your rant for the sake of other posters. We don't want to hear it, thanks.
![sleazy-salesman-pointing[1].webp](https://www.houseofpolitics.com/data/attachments/5/5874-7c664fbfbc44e8d09c68e4ba80040099.jpg?hash=lKzYsXuVc- "sleazy-salesman-pointing[1].webp")
